41 ms·

I find it contradictory how largely the same group that talks about diversity and inclusion and systemic racism etc is happy to champion policies that ignore th

I find it contradictory how largely the same group that talks about diversity and inclusion and systemic racism etc is happy to champion policies that ignore the views of minority groups (whether ethnic, religious, rural, whatever), tell them they are wrong and their concerns unfounded, and call for them to be segregated and denied service based on their choices. An actual "inclusive" construct would work with people to understand and respect their concerns, and meet them where they are, not just tell them they're wrong. Not that it's hard to find inconsistencies in religious / dogmatic positions generally. But in this case, it's messed up that people are going ahead with literal populism - enacting policies that placate an angry mob to the detriment and exclusion of other voices, while simultaneously claiming to support the under represented. Its almost as if their goal all along was not expanded rights, but just trying to find wedges to push their agenda forward...

unanswered 5y ago
I don't find it contradictory at all; in fact I would be surprised if it were any other way. There is a single unbroken thread of policy positions linking white paternalistic slave owners[0], to white paternalistic parts of the abolitionist movement, to white paternalistic policies of today. You can argue that this is outrageous and unbelievable, and look, I wouldn't disagree except that when you look at the world through this lens you will no longer be surprised by the policy and behavior of this group, only saddened. "Diversity and inclusion" is, shall we say, the happy side of that movement; the part of that movement which is prominent throughout the intervening years in between abolition and whatever the fuck is happening this century. While diversity holds its memetic ground, I have not heard "inclusion" used in reference to a policy position in many years. [0] quite possibly a minority of historical US slave owners; I really don't have quantitative details, just synthesis from historical facts
jmopp 5y ago
> based on their choices That's the difference. You shouldn't exclude people for characteristics they can't control (like race or disability) or characteristics core to their identity (like religious views), but I see no problem with excluding people who choose to behave asocially. > An actual "inclusive" construct would work with people to understand and respect their concerns, and meet them where they are You're free to not get vaccinated, and we have accommodations for those who are unable or unwilling to get vaccinated. How do you see an alternative inclusive approach working?

unanswered 5y ago

I don't find it contradictory at all; in fact I would be surprised if it were any other way. There is a single unbroken thread of policy positions linking white paternalistic slave owners[0], to white paternalistic parts of the abolitionist movement, to white paternalistic policies of today. You can argue that this is outrageous and unbelievable, and look, I wouldn't disagree except that when you look at the world through this lens you will no longer be surprised by the policy and behavior of this group, only saddened. "Diversity and inclusion" is, shall we say, the happy side of that movement; the part of that movement which is prominent throughout the intervening years in between abolition and whatever the fuck is happening this century. While diversity holds its memetic ground, I have not heard "inclusion" used in reference to a policy position in many years. [0] quite possibly a minority of historical US slave owners; I really don't have quantitative details, just synthesis from historical facts

jmopp 5y ago

> based on their choices That's the difference. You shouldn't exclude people for characteristics they can't control (like race or disability) or characteristics core to their identity (like religious views), but I see no problem with excluding people who choose to behave asocially. > An actual "inclusive" construct would work with people to understand and respect their concerns, and meet them where they are You're free to not get vaccinated, and we have accommodations for those who are unable or unwilling to get vaccinated. How do you see an alternative inclusive approach working?